Chris Lombardi puts defense and security under the spotlight, as he shares his takes on recent NATO and EU cooperation and provides insight into the company’s own long-term strategic partnerships in Europe.

Three trends are currently driving the global electricity sector: decarbonization, decentralization and differentiation. Utilities are making significant contributions to mitigate carbon emissions, while a technology revolution is …

A vote last Thursday (27 November) in the Parliament’s legal affairs committee secured automatic recognition rights for more than 50 medical specialties.

Now, however, some MEPs are threatening to dump automatic recognition rights for up to 34 different medical qualifications in a plenary vote on a recognition of professional qualifications directive scheduled for 17 December, the British Medical Association (BMA) warned yesterday (3 December). The European Commission recommended pooling recognition systems for a number of professions – which have their own sectoral directives – and have one directive for both sectoral and general systems in a ‘tidying up’ exercise under the SLIM initiative to streamline and pare down EU legislation.

But the BMA warned that “this could be a step backwards in achieving free movement for the medical professions”.

At present, those specialties common to two or more member states have automatic recognition rights. Yet many specialists, including cancer experts, would lose their rights under the Commission’s proposal, which would allow only 17 specialties that are recognised in all EU member states to continue to come under the sectoral system. The legal affairs committee, however, ruled that there was no reason to slash the number of specialties recognized automatically.

But new amendments introduced by a few MEPs – including shadow rapporteur German Social Democrat Evelyne Gebhardt – would limit the number of eligible specialties, the BMA warned.

“The priority should be for high standards of health care, guaranteed by an effective advisory committee whose job it would be to ensure that the qualifications of a migrating doctor match those of his or her equivalent in the host state,” said Dr Edwin Borman, BMA international committee chairman. “It makes no sense to have unnecessary barriers to movement, especially in the UK, where we have a severe shortage of doctors at present.”

The BMA, moreover, “has been working hard to ensure that patient safety is secured by campaigning against the Commission’s proposal to let migrating doctors practice in host countries without having to register for up to 16 weeks”, he added. “Thankfully an amendment has been passed allowing member states to require temporary (or pro-forma) registration and requiring the visiting doctor to notify beforehand. Migrating doctors will be subject to the same disciplinary procedures and codes of conduct as nationals.”

At the same time, however, “authorities are required not to make unnecessary obstacles to free movement”, he emphasized. “Refusing automatic recognition rights for over 30 medical specialties would inevitably lead to such obstacles and it would be a great shame for the directive to create more problems than it solves.”